The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Originally posted by JRS385
Luzer - could you please explain how a company as good as Microsoft could be corrept? Thanks

</sarcasm>

John

Hehe. I think it's pretty self explanatory.

For the record: Just because I think all institutions are corrupt does not mean that I don't think they aren't necessary but that they should strive to remain free of corruption.

Chris: Are you saying that a corporation that pollutes or kills shouldn't be held accountable for their actions? Maybe some of what they do is good, but the good doesn't mean the bad doesn't happen. Shouldn't people try to maximize the good and minimize the bad? If you ask me, holding corporations accountable for the bad things they do is a good way to discourage them from doing bad things. Just wondering

Of course they should be held accountable - my question was what you referring to specifically...everyone should take responsibility for their actions.

Side note: when a conservative is upset with someone not taking responsibility, it's usually in reference to something like abortion or a government program...IE: they quit their job to live off of the welfare check...

"Bush will take this country forward..." or somethign along those lines, quote TWT....

Has the USA been moving backwards? Honestly, Chris, the USA has moved forward SO MUCH in the last 8 years, and the Clinton-Gore administration has done a helluva lot for America. How is a conservative government going to move the US forward? Republicans care about the economy, democrats care for the people... In the last 8 years, the country has moved forward not only economically but also in living standards, there are less people below the poverty line, the US is easily the best off country in the world, kids are getting a good education, the elderly are well cared for and the middle aged and young are happy, healthy and live in a wondrous age.

I did not say that about Bush. You must be thinking of someone else, sorry.

I think Clinton is riding this Internet thing big time - heck, I could bring about economic prosperity in times like these...he's coasted, when even more could have been made out of all of this.

FYI: saying that liberals care about people and conservatives care about the economy is way out there and nowhere near right. Conservatives care about the economy AND people...we just don't think that everyone needs to have their hand held through every little thing.

Have we really moved forward? The standard of living has declined in recent decades despite the recent huge gains in the stock market. In reality the distribution of wealth is just shifting in different ways to create an illusion of greater prosperity.

Voting for Gore, here. I would love to vote for Ralph Nader, but that really does amount to voting for Bush and I'm not about to do that. Besides, although I think that Nader probably has more integrity than anyone who could seriously aspire to the presidency, we probably need more of a balance than he'd provide. Business is important to most people. Gore understands that. And he's been part of an administration that has overseen a robust economy. But so is the environment important, and he understands that, too.
We also need to strive to make this new global economy a bit more equitable. That's a long fight, and I don't believe a lot of progress will be made any time soon, but in the long view, that's what must happen. If you're not concerned about children making clothes and toys in sweatshops around the world..then consider this in self interest: The IT jobs are going to..let's call them tech shops..globally, too. Amazon.com is hiring e-mail and phone customer service reps and data entry clerks in India for one tenth of what the jobs bring in the US. India has plenty of programmers, too. Now, no one should have anything against people in India using their skills to make a living, but if corporations can force down the price of "brain labor" the way they have done with manual labor, they certainly will. The only satisfactory answer is for people all over the world to be paid a living wage for their work. True free market conservatives will never do anything about this and will fight any global labor movement tooth and nail.
And to the post that spoke of unions bringing the cost of labor impossibly high, I say that the global economy and the free market has brought it impossibly low. 30 years ago a single blue collar salary could feed, clothe, house and educate a family. Try that now. People doing the same jobs as middle class workers in the early 60's are now the working poor in the US. The union jobs that pay well for manual labor are few and far between, and not representative of the state of workers overall.
All in all, I don't think that Gore or anyone can solve all the world's problems, but I do think he can understand them, and will do his job with an eye toward progress. I don't think that Bush has a clue.

Originally posted by TWTCommish
I think Clinton is riding this Internet thing big time - heck, I could bring about economic prosperity in times like these...he's coasted, when even more could have been made out of all of this.

Well, it was the Clinton administration that gave the internet to private corporations and made a profit motive for it to be more developed. Or am I wrong?

I don't recall them doing anything of the sort...the only thing I'll give them credit for is not taxing it YET...but I think Gore will tax it at some point if elected...

I just think that with something like the Internet around the all the amazing things it's done for the economy, we ought to better than where we are...or, at the very least, I'm not impressed with a President for "guiding" us here...because I think Clinton sort of lucked out in that respect...among others!

Originally posted by TWTCommish I think Clinton is riding this Internet thing big time - heck, I could bring about economic prosperity in times like these...he's coasted, when even more could have been made out of all of this.

Reagan/Bush gave the country, hopelessness and recession. They sent the countries debt skyrocketing. So much so that it quadrupled and at one point 1/4 of the national budget was being used to pay the interest on the debt. Reagan's policy wasn't "Peace through Superior Firepower" it was "Let's see who can stave off bankruptcy the longest". Luckily we won.

In the last 100 years, this country has seen 3 periods of growth and economic prosperity. The first was after WWII and is totally attributed to Franklin Roosevelt (Democrat). The second was in the 1960's and early 70's during and just after the "Race to the Moon", totally attributed to John F. Kennedy (Democrat). The third is now totally attributed to Bill Clinton (Democrat). Wonder if anyone else sees the trend.

You can argue with this all you want, fact is that 8 years ago the country was in one of the worst recessions ever seen, second only to the great depression of the 1930's. Fact is the country is experiencing its longest sustained period of economic growth and has the lowest percentage of unemployment in its history. More people are buying homes, cars and many other amenities today than 8 years ago.

Eight years ago, there were 450,000 unemployed aerospace workers in California. Each one of those employees supported 10 jobs in their local communities. This means the "trickle down economy" produced almost 5,000,000 unemployed or underemployed people in California alone. That is 1 out of 6. A very high number. Now many communities can't find enough people to fill jobs. The minimum wage is $5.75 here but local fast food restuarants are now hiring people at $8.00 to $9.00 an hour just to get applications. Ten years ago, I used to be able to drive through any neighborhood in my community and find at least 10 repossessed homes in it. Now that isn't possible. These homes are being resold and people are able to pay their bills. If that isn't an improvement in the economy I don't know what is.

Conservatives don't care about the economy, they care about themselves and how to get richer while exploiting the common worker. Their politics and their business practices can prove this through historical fact.

I am not sure if will be voting for Al Gore or not, but one thing is for sure and that is I will not be voting for George W. Bush. Mainly because I wish to improve my children's lifestyle as time goes on and I do not believe any republican can do that because their politics made mine so miserable.

Without meaning to sound stupid... what is the point of voting for an independent? Sadly, it's throwing your vote away, because they're not going to win.

While I think Al Gore is the better candidate by a helluva lot, I beg you people, to vote for someone that knows what they're doing! What'll happen to the country (and if the world s0tays the same, the planet)if George W. gets a bad advisor... or someone who is extremely right wing, or someone who hates technology... or a host of other situations.

He DOESNT think for himself, he can't even read his own speeches, and when he does think for himself, the world cringes. We KNOW Gore has a sense of what is right, and that he is intelligent enough to drive the world forward in the 21st century.

I expected somewhat more from you, Wayne. Conservatives do not simply care about themselves...

If you ask me, lower taxes are not exploiting the common worker...and as we all know, Clinton raised taxes, and vetoes most bills to lower them again. The marriage and death taxes are ridiculous...

I know of a family that inherited a house from their dead father...the "death tax" they had to pay on the house forced them to sell the house and use whatever they could to pay off the tax...sad, and crazy.

Gore, meanwhile, definetly was not/has not been speaking out against all this. If you ask me, this surplus ought to be used for a tax cut...a cut is LONG overdue.

As for Reagan: say what you like...I'm convinced he's one of our greatest Presidents ever - Bush screwed some things up, however.

The Clinton administration has provided meaningful tax breaks. The combination of tax credits and tax deductions for a family with a dependent college student can make a real difference, for instance. On the other hand, the Republican proposals for the repeal of death taxes would affect only a very small percentage of estates. When Republicans talk tax breaks, hold onto your wallet. It usually translates into no meaningful tax relief for anyone except the top earners in the country, but will come with a cut in services to pay for it that will cost the middle and lower income people far more than they were paying in taxes for said services.

Originally posted by TWTCommish If you ask me, lower taxes are not exploiting the common worker...and as we all know, Clinton raised taxes, and vetoes most bills to lower them again. The marriage and death taxes are ridiculous...

Clinton instituted a tax credit for all working people with children. This is a tax cut of up to $400 dollars per person. Of course the less you make the more of a credit you get. I support this. I do not support capital gains tax decreases only helping those with millions of dollars.

For the last 5 years, Democrats have been trying to eliminate the "marriage tax", every time they are defeated by Republicans wanting billions of dollars worth of tax cuts which only help the wealthiest individuals and corporations in the Nation. The wealthiest are the ones that need the least amount of help, not the most. Their money does not trickle down, twelve years of deficit spending and Reagan/Bush economics proved that. A twelve year period in which taxes doubled for the common man.

Clinton raised the National minimum wage by $1.00 over 3 years. This is a real and physical benefit many underemployed people can see physically at the end of each week. Sure its only $40 dollars a week but over an average 50 week work year it comess out to $2000 dollars extra.

I know of a family that inherited a house from their dead father...the "death tax" they had to pay on the house forced them to sell the house and use whatever they could to pay off the tax...sad, and crazy.

There are legal instruments already in place to protect families from estate taxes. A properly prepared individual can avoid these pains for their families if their estate is under $1 million.

Gore, meanwhile, definetly was not/has not been speaking out against all this. If you ask me, this surplus ought to be used for a tax cut...a cut is LONG overdue.

Why should he speak out against policies that have people working, enjoying prosperity and reducing state and federal support of individuals?

Until the national debt is paid off there is no real surplus. All extra monies in the budget should be going to pay down the principal of the country's $4,000,000,000,000 (that is right 12 zeroes or 4 trillion) debt. Until this is paid off there is no true financial security for our country, there is no social security, there is no future for our children.

As for Reagan: say what you like...I'm convinced he's one of our greatest Presidents ever - Bush screwed some things up, however.

Reagan did some good things in Office but his economic policy was not one of them. If Bush screwed things up what makes you think his son will do better? The son has the same ideals, beliefs and way of thinking. That is what parent's do, they mold their sons and daughters into their vision of the best citizen. How hypocritical do you think George W. Bush will be once he gets in Office? He stated that no person should be executed if there was sufficient biological evidence to suggest they are innocent. When the time came to prove that he didn't even place a stay of execution so the evidence could be reviewed and sent a potentially innocent man to his death. Why? Because he wants to kill as many condemned during the election season as he can. They are averaging 12 a month right now in Texas which is a 700% increase from last year when he wasn't running for president. Someone who accelerates the death of another, even a convicted person, for his own potential political gain is not someone we want running this country.

[hr]
Instead of Taxcuts, why not help people and the country in more productive and stimulating ways.

How about actually regulating the banking and credit card industries to control high fees and runaway interest rates?

Instituting Medical Reforms so that the elderly and poor can receive effective preventive care and medications so that our critical care and trauma care centers aren't overrun by people with common illnesses. Opening neighborhood clinics instead of large medical complexes are not only more cost effective but they are better able to serve the people.

Reward people who use alternative means of transportation and alternative energy sources so that we aren't reliant on foreign oil sources, so that our air and water is cleaner and our streets are less clogged. This would have also prevented the doubling and tripling of heating oil and natural gas costs that you will most likely see this winter.

Reworking our "War on Drugs" because what they have is not working. 2 out of 3 people in jail are there based on some drug charge from possession for personal use to drug trafficking. Reduce costs of imprisonment by rethinking sentencing laws. Fines, House Arrest and mandatory treatment programs are much more effective than spending billions of dollars housing these people.

All of these things will improve the economy, reduce national debt and increase the government surplus so that you can have your tax cut. That is if they are properly implemented. That simply won't be possible under a Republican president because it will adversely affect their campaign finances. All of these things were attempted in the last eight years but were defeated in Congress and the Senate because of Special Interests and political donations.

You expect more from me? I am working on making this country a better place for my children and grandchildren and George W. Bush is not going to allow that to happen.

Long post...I have precious little time to post at this moment, so I will only address two points, and try to get to the others later...

Re: minimum wage: there shouldn't be one...if there should be, it ought to be much lower. Doesn't it occur to anyone that there are plenty of low-level workers out there who simply are NOT worth $5-6 an hour to their employer? So what happens to them? They get laid off...

People are not forced to take jobs...what they are paid should be between them and their employer...another example of government rearing its head when its not needed.

Secondly, I am not claiming Bush is a savior...I simply find him to be the best we have available out of himself and Gore.

I wish Forbes were a contender...he'd do more for this economy than either of the two up for election now...starting by destroying the IRS as we know it and ditching the tax code.

Did you know the IRS tax code is over seven times longer than the Bible? And we're supposed to know all that?

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Re: minimum wage: there shouldn't be one...if there should be, it ought to be much lower. Doesn't it occur to anyone that there are plenty of low-level workers out there who simply are NOT worth $5-6 an hour to their employer? So what happens to them? They get laid off...

I can't believe I'm reading this! The minimum wage is one of the things that has contributed to the great prosperity of the western world! If you take away the minimum wage then many people won't have enough money to live, so they will spend less and the economy will stop! Do you happen to be a millionaire by any chance? Have you ever tried to support yourself and your family on a minimum wage job?

Originally posted by TWTCommish
People are not forced to take jobs...what they are paid should be between them and their employer...another example of government rearing its head when its not needed.

Try telling that to an unemployed single mother who does not have any skills. Sometimes people have to take what they can get because it's better than nothing.

Secondly, I am not claiming Bush is a savior...I simply find him to be the best we have available out of himself and Gore.

You may see him as the lesser of two evils, I see him as destroying our economy, our culture and our way of life. I see him practically inviting every enemy of the country to have a field day while we learn how to cope with poverty and despair.

If that is the lesser of two evils, then by all means its the right choice. I personally see him as single handedly being able to destroy a country that many millions have spent 300 years building. If you think I am exagerating, then you need to review how perilously the United States is situated in the Global Economy. In fact the destruction of the world is prophesied in the Bible you hold so dear. In six years when Christ's 2000 years are up, are you really ready for that?

Here's what happens with the minimum wage: some people get more money, and the ones that arn't WORTH that much, are fired. To put it simply: not everyone is worth $5-6 an hour...also makes it tougher for younger people (16-17) to find work...because a 16 year old may not be worth $6 an hour to McDonald's.

We do have welfare for people with problems...and we'd have plenty to go around if it were not so heavily abused.

As for Bush: you may think what you like Wayne, but I'm convinced that Bush will likely be elected, and will do good things for this country. He is not a cure-all...no one is. Like you said...Reagan did some great things - we just disagree on what they are. No one president can bring prosperity in every area...even though ALL of them claim they can.

Sorry...I'm nuts about Reagan...I'm convinced he was an amazing man, a true leader, someone who united the country and did more for it than we even realize. He didn't do it all...but I truly believe he came along at a time when the U.S. needed him.

Originally posted by TWTCommish Here's what happens with the minimum wage: some people get more money, and the ones that arn't WORTH that much, are fired. To put it simply: not everyone is worth $5-6 an hour...also makes it tougher for younger people (16-17) to find work...because a 16 year old may not be worth $6 an hour to McDonald's.

Well, nobody's forcing anybody to hire people if they don't think they're worth minimum wage. If they weren't worth it they'd be fired. And taking away minimum wage would just send more people onto welfare.

Where would you consider moving Wayne?

"Read my lips. No new taxes." - George. W. Senior prior to making the biggest tax increase in a long time.

You're right - they won't hire them...they're not forced to. People are necessarily worth a minimum of so and so much...if someone isn't worth the minimum wage, how on earth will they find a decent job?

Bush screwed up seriously with that line...however Clinton, if I recall correctly, promised not to raise taxes...however championed a new Energy Tax shortly after his election...15%, was it? I'm not sure.

when ronnie was the gov of california he REDUCED taxes. he did this by increasing the budget at the state level but reducing the amount the state had historically returned to the cities and counties.

we have a thing called prop 13 that puts a freeze on property tax going through the roof. and with less or no money coming back from the state, the cities became "innovative". the use fee was introduced. with the threat that the libraries, fire and police protection would be drastically reduced without its passage on the ballot.

so we got a temporary sewer use fee, a percentage added to the water bill. the calculation is that what enters a house also exits. it started at about 10% of the bill for water. 25 years later it is still on the bill, but it is now 250%. ie. water = $10 usefee=$25 total=$35.

lets say all houses cost from 1 to 10 dollars for the deed. a family of four in the $1 house pays the same use fee as the family of 4 in the $10 house. where a payroll tax from the state with a rebate to the city, would have income equity, the sewer use fee has a head-count equity.

the fact is that the government will take its pound of salt, whether it is the city, state or federal.

i just wish they (that nebulous thing we call government) would provide a real truth in taxation to the rest of us.